About your Search

20121117
20121117
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)
, but will the obama administration let it happen or turn an oil boom into a bust? welcome to the journal editorial report, i'm paul gigot. headed into friday, fiscal cliff talks with congressional leaders, president obama gave us a hit list of his negotiations strategies, repeating his intention to immediately raise tax rates on top earners. >> when it comes to the top 2%, what i'm not going to do is to extend further a tax cut for folks who don't need it which would cost close to a trillion dollars and it's very difficult to see how you make up that trillion dollars if we're serious about deficit reduction, just by closing loopholes and deductions. the math tends not to work. >> paul: but does the president's math add up? let's ask wall street journal columnist bill mcguerin, and analyst steve moore and washington columnist kim strassel. so, kim, the president won reelection, was this the hand of magnimty reaching out to the republicans? >> it's crazy, it's what the president says all the time. if you listen to the press conference, he seems to say the biggest wish list for his liberal partisans
attack, but did his testimony get the obama administration in even more hot water? >> a short time ago, the former cia director left capitol hill after five hours of testimony, closed, classified testimony before the house & senate intelligence committees. >> general pet petraeus' briefing of comprehensive. it added to our ability to make judgments about what is clearly a failure of intelligence. >> the talking points were must have more specific about the al qaeda involvement, but the final ones indicate even though it was clearly evident to the cia that there was al qaeda involvement. >> talking points prepared for her. >> said it was al qaeda. >> sometime between september 14 and september 16, somebody took the al qaeda element out and put the video in. >> the question we have is who made the changes and why? we haven't been able to get that answer. >> petraeus is saying, i said it was terrorism from the get go. if you did, why did susan rice go out two days later and say it was the video. >> why we need a select committee on this. >> the general had to acknowledge and none of us li
this territory for weeks now that he thinks the obama administration is incompetent. we know his stand when it comes to libya. let the other committees do their work. i don't think a watergate-style hearing will necessarily advance -- >> greta: i disagree. there is too much duplication and we have people coming at six hearings. i would rather streamline it. susan, what do you think? >> when have you six different committees, they're often unable to share information. the spell gent committee can't talk about the classified hearings. so mccain's point, if we have one place where all of this information can be centralized, we can get to the bottom of this faster. this is four americans who were killed. this is not -- this is worse than watergate because people died -- the question that the republicans have, why -- why aren't democrats agreeing to a specially committee. >> i think no one says it's not serious. i think that is a distraction from the point. sometimes i think congress -- there is -- there is a regular order that sometimes in the mess that you are talking about has its own intelli
to fake a scandal in the obama administration. paul waldman calls it scandal envy. nixon had watergate, clinton had le win ski and obama has gotten off scot-free and it's making the republicans livid. republicans are not going to get the watergate this time around. senator harry reid wrote a letter to john mccain and lindsey graham saying a collect committee for investigation will not happen. the time for phoney outrage is over. republicans need to get back to the real problems facing americans. get your cell phones out. tonight's question, will the gop stop their witch hunt on benghazi? text a for yes, b for no to 622639. or you can leave a comment on our blog. and we'll bring you results later on in the show. joining me now is retired colonel lawrence wilkerson, former chief of staff number colin powell's term. colonel, good to have you with us tonight. >> good to be here, ed. >> take us down the road of talking points. do we see unified talking points? is this common practice that the intell committee will get together to brief the congress and to brief the country? and is it usual
was describing that the obama administration did, that is called governing. >> yeah. let's go to david. why would he use words like this. this is the way he thinks unless he's being scripted. this was unscripted. this is the pure romney. >> chris, i was the first guy in the media to see the 47% remark and when i saw it i couldn't believe it. maybe there was a slight chance that maybe he was saying to it play up to that crowd, that's what they wanted to hear. now when we hear him talk about voters he didn't just say he was bought off, that obama won their votes through bribery. he said i ran a campaign of big ideas. so they are the moochers, they are victims who will pay them the most. in the end what happens, mitt romney portrays himself as a victim of the victims. so just confirms all the worst impressions from the 47% rant and now you have republicans running away from him and basically saying hey don't let the car elevator door hit you on the way out. >> let me go to one thoughtful conservative. who i usually agree with. he's a smart guy. he writes for "the weekly standard." it seems to me tha
. >> republican leaders warned the obama administration is using mind control to manipulate all of us. the the forum was all caught on camera. >> how psyched was the guy who was asked to make that graphic for that segment. we're going to need a graphic with president obama on it. and since he's president, maybe throw in an american flag. what's the theme? it's about mind control. so give us something with president obama and a flag and the words "mind control" and whatever other imagery might get the idea across at a glance. ama amazing. the story was based on this video inside a four-hour long seminar conducted by the republican caucus. republicans are the majority in the state and they convened this four-hour event for republican senators to learn about how president obama was using cold war era mind control techniques to trick americans into turning ourselves over to the united nations for, you know, one world government and enslavement. if you want some historical perspective, there's stalin and then there's president obama. the results at the bottom, tbd. this was one of the slid
be eager to help if the reelected obama administration wanted to take the lead and kickstart a process that deserves to be called a peace process. we certainly hope that would have been. with regard to the drug problem, i just want to add that of course everybody is now buying drones, even european armies are buying drones. but interestingly enough, as are injurious to countries in other parts of the world has declined because of the not so successful experience in over the last decade. i hope i'm correct i cannot recall a moment in recent history where in the absence of, you know, act of u.s. leadership or participation, the europeans are contemplating driving up plans right now for a military mission to molly. with the argument that what is going on in molly could he not necessarily, but could develop into something very similar to the kinds of phenomena that forced us into afghanistan a decade ago. so what i'm trying to say is the birth of the drug technology matters, i don't believe international development will allow us the luxury of keeping the boys home. there will be unfortuna
to the intelligence assessment. >> general, we have the gop still suggesting that the obama administration concealed the fact benghazi was a terror attack for political reasons. from what we have learned from general petraeus's testimony, doesn't it seem the administration held back information, if they did so it was because a genuine national security concern existed? >> well, you know, my take on this, alex, this is centralist political posturing inside washington. the problem was we had inadequate ground security there. that's a state department function, not cia. when the thing went bad we had this am bass do, bilingual in arabic, he shouldn't have been there. that was the problem. but -- characterized the mob was minutiae for good next sakes. libya is a mess. there's no government, no army. it's not a success. probably better than having that monster gadhafi and his family in charge of it. but that's the problem. they have to get their eyesight up. we've got a war in afghanistan going that's running us $6 billion a month and several hundred killed and wounded a month. and here we're focused on
thinks that government comes down to. because the things he was describing that the obama administration did, that is called governing. >> yeah. i think -- same question to you, david, why would he use words like this? i think it's the way he thinks unless he's being scripted. 47% was unscripted. this was unscripted. this could be the pure romney. >> you know, chris, i was the first guy in the media to see the 47% remark. when i saw it, i couldn't believe it, but i thought maybe there was a slight chance that maybe he was saying it to play up to that crowd. he knew that's what they wanted to hear. but now when we hear how he talks about voters, he didn't just say, yes, they were bought off that, obama won their votes through bribery. he said i ran a campaign of big ideas, but these other people out there, they don't care about it. they're just in it for themselves, so they are the moochers, they are victims who are looking at who will pay them the most. in the end what happens, mitt romney portrays himself as a victim of the victims. it just confirms all the worst impressions from the 47
at the performance of susan rice, among others, and the obama administration, and so, harry reid sent a letter yesterday and told john mccain he is not going to get the special committee he wanted. but i think the administration simply is going to have to watch republicans spend their energy on this. david petraeus tried to make the argument, defending susan rice, that she was repeating talking points, that she'd been given for the reason that the administration did not want to alert terrorist groups that we knew that they were behind the attack. i'm not sure that that's going to quiet the criticism. we're just going to have to see how long it plays out. >> you saw the meeting yesterday with the president and congressional leaders on the fiscal cliff. how confident are you that a compromise will be reached in a timely fashion? >> pretty confident, actually, alex. you know, i thought the outcome of that meeting was about as positive as you could hope to see from a bipartisan meeting of congressional leaders with the president of the united states, all four leaders, pelosi, mcconnell, reid, boeh
moment. i think the message you hear from the obama administration is that moment is not coming back again. you have to pick your fights and pick them according to national interests. i think what will be fascinating in the mideast, as you saw in libya, where we got into a discussion, a debate between the republican defense secretary, robert gates, who said there is no national interest here and people like secretary clinton, susan rice and others who said we have a responsibility to protect and not was the argument for going in and -- that was the argument for going in. that argument remains unsettled today, and that is the doubt i think you were picking up on in your question. >> i will make several comments. in europe, a look at it this way. first, when you look at, globally, countries, the united states has had the capability, and even in this period of time, but secondly, it is the united states that has taken the responsibility and stepped forward. i cannot point to another country that has been willing to take that responsibility. having said that, david refers to how we
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)